Animal Sacrifice: Why turn a blind eye?

[jgh7]

There are detailed rules in the Old Testament for conducting animal sacrifice both as a means of praise to God and as a means of seeking forgiveness/atonement for sins.

I view animal sacrifice as barbaric nonsensical cruelty to animals. The notion that forgiveness or worship of God are linked to killing an animal is disturbing.

How do Christians reconcile the rules of animal sacrifice in the OT? They eventually were phased out, but they certainly existed for a long time when the OT was in effect (thousands of years perhaps).

To me, this is enough to completely dismiss Christianity from a religious standpoint. I will not partake in a religion whose God once condoned animal sacrifice. I mean, my common sense tells me it's disturbing to the point that it would be silly to partake in such a religion.

Questions:

Do you view animal sacrifice as barbaric/cruel/disturbing?
If yes, then doesn't this mean that the bible God is barbaric/cruel/disturbing since He approved of it and had detailed rules for it written in the OT?

[marco]

God is quite capable of forgiving a human being without the need for a bloody barbaric sacrifice. Well he should be... unless he really is barbaric and bloodthirsty.

Why blame poor Yahweh for the flaws in his creators? He was given the tough, masculine qualities much admired by the nomadic thugs who listened to the stories about him. Since prevailing wisdom involved killing bulls and goats and doves for sacrifice they not only thought Yahweh would want them, but might also relish some genitalia for good measure. It all makes perfect sense, seen in the proper light, but it doesn't make sacrificing animals good. It explains why we hear, in a "Holy Book", that Jephthah sacrificed his own daughter to Yahweh.

[bluethread]

I am interpreting Christianity as she is advertised. Christ's labours pertain not merely to the anonymities he cured but his words and message have universal relevance. I believe this is true. In other words, Christ arrived to help mankind - how remains a mystery, but I think that was his plan. I agree some special groups think he came for maybe seventeen folk assembled in somebody's kitchen or to give invitations to a cross-section of the world's changing population (144,000 males, perhaps) but we can safely disregard this as nonsense.

I wasn't suggesting Jesus was a Marxist.

First, I said nothing about Marxism, nor did I intend to imply that you did. I was noting that your assertion that, "One gets the impression that Jesus did things for "all people" and if indeed he was heaven-sent, then his opus should have applications for all people that on earth do dwell." I do not see that as a requirement for Yeshua being "heaven-sent". By the way, who are you quoting when you say, "all people"? Second, this is not the T,D&D forum, so you are not permitted to presume, "Christianity as she is advertised". It is necessary to indicate that one is referring to how "she is advertised" and by whom specifically. Third, you side stepped my point, that the sacrifices are symbolic by nature and meant to serve as object lessons.

[Elijah John]

Then again, seems God never wanted blood sacrifice in the first place, animal OR human. Consider:

Jeremiah 7:21-24American Standard Version (ASV)

21 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: 23 but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you. 24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and [a]went backward, and not forward.

And:

Psalm 50:10-15 American Standard Version (ASV)

10
For every beast of the forest is mine,
And the cattle [a]upon a thousand hills.
11
I know all the birds of the mountains;
And the wild beasts of the field are mine.
12
If I were hungry, I would not tell thee;
For the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.
13
Will I eat the flesh of bulls,
Or drink the blood of goats?
14
Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving;
And pay thy vows unto the Most High;
15
And call upon me in the day of trouble:
I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.

I realize there are some verses that contradict these, and support the idea of blood sacrifice. But that only proves the Bible is contradictory on this matter.

And those who want to believe in blood sacrifice, choose to believe in blood sacrifice.

But that is not the only Biblical option. There are several other anti-blood atonement passages, namely Micah 6.6-8, Hosea 6.6 and others.

Verses like these and others support the option of simple repentance, devotion to God and love of neighbor.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

21 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: 23 but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you. 24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and [a]went backward, and not forward.

A perfect example of Israel hearing God through a mirror darkly, i.e., the twisted context of a fallen world. Hearing what they wanted to hear versus what God was really telling them / asking for...

[bluethread]

I realize there are some verses that contradict these, and support the idea of blood sacrifice. But that only proves the Bible is contradictory on this matter.

And those who want to believe in blood sacrifice, choose to believe in blood sacrifice.

But that is not the only Biblical option. There are several other anti-blood atonement passages, namely Micah 6.6-8, Hosea 6.6 and others.

Verses like these and others support the option of simple repentance, devotion to God and love of neighbor.

These are all comparative, pointing out that the sacrifices were never meant to be an end unto themselves. The Temple was not destroyed and thus the sacrifice ended, because the Temple and the sacrifices were not important and defiantly not because they were cruel to animals. They were ended because they had become corrupted and no longer served their intended purpose.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

21 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: 23 but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you. 24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and [a]went backward, and not forward.

A perfect example of Israel hearing God through a mirror darkly, i.e., the twisted context of a fallen world. Hearing what they wanted to hear versus what God was really telling them / asking for...

Agreed. Some of the Prophets ( like the aforementioned) seemed to have heard God more clearly than Moses, the author of Hebrews, Paul and others. King David too seems to have been coming to grips with the idea that God desires a contrite heart, and not blood sacrifice.

Maimonides suggested that God only tolerated animal sacrifice as transitional ...at least the ancient Hebrews were sacrificing animals to the Living God, YHVH, and not to the Egyptian gods or babies to the Canaanite gods.

[Elijah John]

I realize there are some verses that contradict these, and support the idea of blood sacrifice. But that only proves the Bible is contradictory on this matter.

And those who want to believe in blood sacrifice, choose to believe in blood sacrifice.

But that is not the only Biblical option. There are several other anti-blood atonement passages, namely Micah 6.6-8, Hosea 6.6 and others.

Verses like these and others support the option of simple repentance, devotion to God and love of neighbor.

These are all comparative, pointing out that the sacrifices were never meant to be an end unto themselves. The Temple was not destroyed and thus the sacrifice ended, because the Temple and the sacrifices were not important and defiantly not because they were cruel to animals. They were ended because they had become corrupted and no longer served their intended purpose.

Questions of animal slaughter or Temple corruption aside,

It could be merely a dawning realization by the prophets that God never needed blood sacrifice to begin with, in order to forgive sins or for any other reason.

YHVH is not, was not a Pagan deity to be appeased..enlightenment seems to have come with the Prophets, and not so much with the Priests.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

I view animal sacrifice as barbaric nonsensical cruelty to animals. The notion that forgiveness or worship of God are linked to killing an animal is disturbing.

I take it you are a vegetarian?

The majority of animal sacrifices concluded with eating. So the difference between them and the modern butcher is that religious significance was attached to the former.

So, in fact, your argument really is not about "cruelty" to animals as it is, "we can be cruel to animals, so long as no religious significance is found in the cruelty".

[bluethread]

Questions of animal slaughter or Temple corruption aside,

It could be merely a dawning realization by the prophets that God never needed blood sacrifice to begin with, in order to forgive sins or for any other reason.

YHVH is not, was not a Pagan deity to be appeased..enlightenment seems to have come with the Prophets, and not so much with the Priests.

I have never thought that Adonai needed blood sacrifice, man does. It is as Yeshua said with regard to Shabbat, "Shabbat was made for man, not man for Shabbat." Man was not created to do sacrifices, the sacrifices were instituted to remind us of Adonai's promise to deal with the problem of sin.

[marco]

I take it you are a vegetarian?

The majority of animal sacrifices concluded with eating. So the difference between them and the modern butcher is that religious significance was attached to the former.

So, in fact, your argument really is not about "cruelty" to animals as it is, "we can be cruel to animals, so long as no religious significance is found in the cruelty".

The argument seems to be about killing animals in adoration. Your point would be very good were it not for the importance of burnt offerings, which went entirely to God, except from the skin that was given to priests.

And in the story of Abraham and Isaac, the trapped ram seems to have met its death entirely as an offering to God, and it was supplied by God (it seems) for that end.